I began
2015 with the first post in my “Why Phoenixville?” series. I phrased it as a question—in fact THE
question for historians—because I do not know the answer, nor do I know
anybody who does. That answer (or, more
likely, answers) would be of great value to the other towns along the lower
Schuylkill at the very least, and probably many more than that. It’s a subject well worth pursuing, and I
shall continue.
I put the question out for discussion and contributions among my readers, and have been continuously pleased with the results. I printed a full post by a guest a few weeks
ago, and this week I want to take up some of the subjects offered by others in
their responses. Several actually
compiled lists, with points that deserve to be made. This week I touch on just a few.
One topic that has been the subject of
several different responses is the avowedly religious nature of
Phoenixville. Some claimed, in the words
of one, “We seem more religious than the average community.” Another
writer put it more precisely:
“This is also a
very religiously diverse town. There are 33 different churches in this town of
varying beliefs. This can allow people to find the church that best speaks to
their personal beliefs and find the sense of community they have been looking
for. This is almost unheard of in small towns.”
This statement is manifestly true, and
several people commented about how active their churches are in the community. Yet I have some questions about determining
how religious a community is, even using the obvious data. Take the situation in Bridgeport, for
example. The borough possesses about one
quarter of the population of Phoenixville, and their economic conditions can
scarcely be compared. The
final two Catholic churches within the borough’s boundaries have just shut
down, leaving Bridgeport without a Catholic place of worship for the first time
since 1892. Does that make Bridgeport
any less religious that Phoenixville? I
seriously doubt that. These closures are
about people and money, or rather the declining number of both, not the
religious nature of those that remain.
Perhaps the point raised by another writer applies here: “The
Borough's size seems just right; not so big that doing things is like trying to
turn the Titanic, but big enough to actually have some resources.” I’m not
so sure that any size is “just right,” but smallness is usually more of an
impediment that largeness. I think Bridgeport
falls into that category.
My second question about the place of religion in the revival
of Phoenixville is one of the favorites of historians, referred to generically
as the “chicken-or-the-egg question.” Is Phoenixville’’s religious/community
orientation a cause of the borough’s revival, or a result? In other words, did Phoenixville’s already
religious nature attract people who wanted to live in a close-knit community,
thus spearheading its revival, or did its revival, locally-generated as it has
been, attract this kind of people? The
answer to such a question is usually “both,” because any individual component
in so complex an equation can be both a stimulant to and a result of a town’s
revival, particularly when it involves judging the nature of a substantial
portion of the population. Because we
must employ those arbitrary and imaginary categories that I have written about
previously, the question becomes at which end of the spectrum does this
particular component, on balance, deserve to be placed, as cause or result? I’d like to hear more about this aspect of
the subject from you, my readers. It’s
important.
Other readers have made individual points
that must remain classified as claims rather than facts, because they are not
manifestly obvious. Two of these are subjects so vitally important to a town’s
revival that—and with all due respect to their author(s)—they must remain as
theses, not conclusions. Each might be
correct or it might not, which is just the kind of search in which I love to
participate. These two date back to my
first post, and I regret having to wait this long to air their heartening opinions.
One writer put the spotlight on the borough’s administrative staff. This is a hugely important aspect of a community's revival, and the claim made is that the staff of Phoenixville Borough has been quite supportive of private efforts in recent years. The writer specifically praised the (now-defunct) Community Development Corporation for its efforts. This opens an interesting issue (why is it defunct? Was it no longer needed?), about which I look forward to reading opinions.
One writer put the spotlight on the borough’s administrative staff. This is a hugely important aspect of a community's revival, and the claim made is that the staff of Phoenixville Borough has been quite supportive of private efforts in recent years. The writer specifically praised the (now-defunct) Community Development Corporation for its efforts. This opens an interesting issue (why is it defunct? Was it no longer needed?), about which I look forward to reading opinions.
Speaking of staff, the same writer—joined by a couple of others, but I’m
using his words—also made the claim that
“the
leadership of the county government has always been supportive of
Phoenixville’s revitalization and the voters of surrounding areas have not born
any resentment towards the Borough if it sucks in a few more tax dollars than
it generates on paper.”
The first,
if true, is laudatory. The second, if
true, would be a miracle. I hope that
the historical record demonstrates that both are, but that would make them
exceptions to the norm.
I very much want to hear other opinions on the subjects of borough administration, its relationship with the county, and the attitude of surrounding residents toward what has happened to Phoenixville. These are crucial subjects, and because they involve several sub-topics and even more people, the answers are likely to be complex. Let me hear from you.